How Much Would Utility-Only Cap-and-Trade Cost?

Bryan Walsh, over at TIME, has a solid post on the cost of cap-and-trade, noting that the Congressional Budget Office has found that Kerry-Lieberman would shave $19 billion dollars off the deficit. At the end, he speculates on how utility-only cap-and-trade would differ:

“The CBO hasn’t done an analysis—because there’s been no bill written—but on his blog Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations has written that a utility-only cap could have fewer sources of revenue because the carbon market itself would be much smaller than with an economy-wide cap. It’d be ironic if, in trying to craft a climate bill that is less ambitious and costs less, the Senate actually produces one that’s a greater drain on the budget.”

I wouldn’t worry too much. Utility-only cap-and-trade would indeed generate less revenue, since there would be fewer emissions permits for the government to sell. (I’d also guess that any utility-only system would be engineered to generate a lower price for each permit.) But a utility-only system would also have fewer interests to compensate. Heavy industry, for example, would incur fewer costs, and hence need fewer free permits; ditto for refineries. There would inevitably be less money for supporting clean energy innovation, and probably less money to rebate directly to consumers (depending on the details of a bill). My guess is that a (politically realistic) utility-only bill would still deliver net benefits for the deficit, though probably smaller ones than under Kerry-Lieberman. Whether the difference would be substantial would depend fundamentally on the details.

Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions.